Jump to content

Talk:Affordable housing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


General comments

Seems like it might violate No Original Research. Needs categories, more work, maybe headings, but I need some sleep. Snurks T C 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't primary source research. It's just missing source citations. Luciuskwok 11:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Luciuskwok, no original research here. I would call this a stub, though, since this field is vast and there is little information here. I added a few citations today, but for some reason my log-in didn't take and didn't register me as the editor. Castellanet 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Castellanet's edits were helpful, and have improved the entry, including some NPOV improvements. I agree that it is still a stub. All of the information here is verifiable (even though not all are cited), so it's not original research. More is needed, but I suspect one day this will be a nice entry. Thesmothete 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits made by 69.140.80.92 have no citations and are not NPOV in my view. Unless source citations are added, I think they should be removed. For now, I'm going to segregate the edits to their own sections. Castellanet 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) There has been no response by 69.140.80.92, and no citations added, so I am going to remove these edits. Castellanet 22:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an excellent topic. One question I have is that all the discussion of affordable housing seems to pre-suppose that it is a good thing. Is there any way that concerns regarding exogenous interference in the "natural" functioning of the housing market could be expressed? Eddieuny 05:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Eddieuny, there isn't anything about affordable housing that requires any sort of market distortions. In a perfectly balanced, diverse market, there will always be someone who is willing and able to supply the demand. In pressured markets (more demand than supply), however, "affordable" is often used as a euphemism for subsidized housing." 70.137.154.208 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Show us the perfectly balanced diverse market please! Eyedubya (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things to add: 1)Household income categories for U.S. subsidies should also include “Extremely Low-Income,” those who earn less than 30% of AMI. 2) The U.S. Subsidy section would benefit from a discussion about the federal government giving more discretion to local government to develop affordable housing through CDBG and HOME funds. mjbeal (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No section on criticism of this topic. For example, subsidized housing caused lower profits for the owner of the housing (apartments) and less incentive for the owner to make improvements. Consequently this leads to worse housing conditions for those of lower income. If we add to the mix green zones and lack of ability to build, the remaining unsubsidized housing prices skyrocket (supply and demand), leading to less affordability to those homes. (Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.6.11 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statement under the UK affordable housing section, "financial de-regulation was important". Financial regulations have increased since the 1980s not decreased. Further, since 2013 two agencies (FCA and PRA) now do the job of one previous agency (FSA) to regulate the finance and banking industry, and prices have still increased. Rises in the price of houses have followed rises in the availability of money of which banks can lend, which is controlled by central banks, through interest rates and financial operations in the market (i.e. buying and selling of bonds to either add or remove money from circulation). That in itself is a sort of regulation, the point being that to say this is a lack of regulation is incorrect, rather, the UK has lots of pointless regulation that encourages rather than discourage monetary expansion, which in turns causes price inflation in every market it touches.

Hello Fellow Wikipedians, just some critiques of the page to make the page easier to navigate, and make sure the information is up to date.

The information used in much of the article is several years old. As economies change and new initiatives are put into place, the utilization of affordable housing has undoubtedly changed, and introducing new sources later than 2010 as many of the sources in this article reference, would give readers a more accurate understanding of the subject.

The information about effects of 2008 recession on affordability of housing under "Housing Expenditures" should be instead be under "economy" section, because as the economy grew/collapsed, the standards of what was affordable living changed.

The article's lack of information pertaining to major cities in the countries/nations it references for availability of affordable housing could be improved greatly. Especially within the category of the United States, adding a section on San Diego would be beneficial to readers because as the city becomes more and more popular with tourists, availability of affordable housing is decreasing substantially and there is limited room to build new housing. Additionally, adding sections on particular cities in the US with surging populations due to tech hubs or to new industries like marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

The citation of work by Owens under the Affordable Housing and Policy subheading does not flow with the preceding information very well and should be edited to better convey the information's relevance in that section.

It would also contribute to the article's relevance if there were more countries examined, especially as the effects of globalization are no doubt having an effect on raising home prices above the point where the housing is affordable to most of population. Lwking (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Subsidized housing

Removed merge tag. -- Petri Krohn 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Subsidies are involved sometimes, when municipalities coerce certain rent/buy ceilings; it's basically rent control. Other buyers/renters pay higher prices to reduce cost to some. Sometimes cities pay the builder or similar, such as discounted land, reduced taxes. 68.180.38.25 (talk)

Worldwide view

This article discusses the subject entirely from a US point of view, it is not the information on affordable housing in general which one would expect when looking up the article. --Brideshead 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the criticism. However, the fix requires time and knowledge. Hopefully the tag will help encourage the right contributor? Castellanet 04:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of affordable housing is a discussion topic that has no parameters. We tend to use terms that have little meaning in the real world. For example. What is the sense of talking about a median family earning a median income or to delve into the dream world of economists when even the word "affordable" is not defined. A millionaire can surely afford a standard suburban dwelling but how about a family on welfare?

What are other countries/ governments/organisations doing about reducing the cost. What about links to "The Nature of Form" by Eric Hunting. Who is to blame for the runaway cost of land and house packages and the concentration of populations in cities. For example in Australia with a population density that is ridiculous [there are more sheep than people per Km2] the cost of housing/land last year increased by 35% in some areas. Our organisation has been designing attractive yet affordable modular family home on the basis that these should not exceed 3-times the family income. The article should really talk more about 'affordable' housing. Beyond Shelter - Australia 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What's affordable?

Does anyone have information about how you decide whether or not a given level should be affordable? In the SF Bay area, we hear a lot about the 30% limit being officially affordable... and then see high-paid people spending 50% of their income without the least apparent difficulty. On the other hand, if your income was extremely low, then I'm not sure that you could dedicate 30% of your income to housing and still be able to buy food.

How did anyone come to the conclusion that 30% (or 35% or 40%) is affordable? Is it based on what the median household spends on housing, and then ignoring the fact that 50% of the population "affords" more than that? Is it based on what drives bankruptcy or makes people rely on food donations?

Wouldn't such a calculation depend on a lot of factors, like what counts as income, how progressive the tax structures are, how much food costs (and how many you need to feed), how you book changes in the home's market value, how you book mortgage principal payments ("housing expense" or "reduction of Notes Payable"?), whether you pay for your own healthcare or get it 'free', and what allowances for telephone/Internet and transportation are reasonable? It seems like the usual rules of thumb:

  • one third for housing,
  • one third for food,
  • one fifth for taxes (FICA and sales taxes being the biggest expense for low income people in the US),
  • one sixth for healthcare (national average, based on GDP).

already add up to more than 100%, and we haven't even talked about clothing, telephone, or transportation costs.

Are we even trying to account for the fact that U.S. housing has gotten bigger and fancier since those calculations were originally done? Almost fifty years ago, my grandmother bought a perfectly decent, brand new three-bedroom home with a great yard. She raised three kids in it, but none of my friends would consider buying something similar, because it "only" has three small bedrooms, one bathroom, a non-gourmet kitchen, and room for one car in the garage. At 1500 square feet, it is "too small" for their sophisticated tastes.

On the other hand, they can't officially afford their ideal homes. So is their aspiration to live in an enormous McMansion (two adults, no kids, five bedrooms, three bathrooms, gourmet kitchen, three-car garage) really a "market affordability" problem, or an overconsumption problem (read, "character flaw")? And if our new housing stock is all McMansions, how does that affect the calculation of affordability for an area? Should we really be upset that the median single family home isn't officially affordable to young adults, or should we be talking about the advantages of living in an inexpensive studio apartment near a light rail stop? 70.137.141.212 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, most people in the developed world only spend about a seventh of their income on food, but yes, that's a problem. You might like to read about the basic needs calculation that the Fraser Institute promotes in Canada. It suffers from fewer of these flaws. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Or look up the Henderson Poverty Index that was developed in Australia in the 1970s. (this needs a page on WP) Eyedubya (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my issue with this article. How does one define affordable housing considering various situations of the different populations around the world. Selmaburke (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sweat equity

Sweat equity is just a fancy word for "building it yourself." As an economic concept, it's a wash. You could spend 500 hours sawing boards and nailing up sheetrock, or you could work an extra 500 hours at a regular job to earn the money to pay someone else to saw your boards and nail up your sheetrock. We have not actually changed the real cost of building a house. What we've done with sweat equity is given someone the equivalent of a part-time job, with non-fungible pay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That assumes people can access the extra work at the same pay rate that it costs them to pay someone to do the building work - possible in theory, rare in practice for that segment of the population in need of cheap housing, since tradespeople are generally vey well paid. Eyedubya (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
True: if you can't get any kind of work, then you might as well do what you can, with the recognition that it will probably take you many more hours than it will take a pro. I've seen a four people (family members) spend all day placing two three floor joists, and three people spend an entire afternoon framing one simple wall. Both of these tasks normally take a two-person journeyman-level crew less than an hour. You are not always better off using eight amateur-hours framing a wall instead of paying for two professional-hours. You are very frequently better off working four hours or six hours at some regular job to pay for the two hours of professional time.
Then you have to consider the people who never finish their homes. A family a few blocks away from the home of my youth (which we built) did this. The neighbors bought plans from some national DIY-oriented place (this outfit, I think?), which eventually went bankrupt because so few "sweat equity" buyers actually finished their homes far enough to refinance the cost of the building supplies. We learned that the neighbors had gone bankrupt themselves when the bulldozer showed up. The house had to be knocked down for health and safety reasons that ranged from "Why are there no studs in this wall?" to "See that huge crack in the foundation?" to "Who thought the walls needed to be 'insulated' with dirty disposable diapers?" "Willing to swing a hammer" is not the same as sufficiently skilled, much less efficient. Most people are best off doing what they're best at, which probably doesn't include constructing a modern home.
But the main point is this: In economic terms, time is money. Doing it yourself does not change the cost of a house from $100,000 to $60,000. It changes what you pay from "$100K cash" to "$60K cash plus two thousand hours". This does not necessarily improve the overall cost of the house, because your time is worth something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Or money is time, in other words. But anecdotal evidence aside, can you point to any evaluations of formal 'sweat equity' type programs that prove your case? There are numerous examples of state-supported programs where intending homeowners participate in the construction of housing (theirs and other peoples) under the supervision of qualified builders, thus obviating the kind of issues you raise. In any event, in most developed countries, there are laws preventing un-licenced tradespeople doing the kind of work that might make a house dangerous (plumbing, electrics, structure etc), and such programs have to work within the law. Eyedubya (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That information belongs in sweat equity, not affordable housing. All that matters for this article is that cash, when compared less cash plus time, is not really more affordable. It may be more buy-able (just like a tiny package of soap is "cheaper" than a large one), but that's a different issue. This is even more true in the most expensive/least affordable areas, because most of the costs are land, not labor (including, for example, practically everything in the San Francisco Bay area).
Officially, the burden for support belongs on the editor who wants to include information. If you can find an economic analysis that says a person is better off becoming an amateur homebuilder than in getting another job to hire a professional, then I'm willing to include it (briefly) here. What I'm not willing to do is to assume, with no documentation, that "lower cash cost" is the same thing as either "lower total cost" or "affordable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Then I'd like to see a tabulation on this page of all the costs that are included in home-purchasing that are not subject to your distinction between 'cash cost' and 'time cost'. Once all of the activities (and their costs) are laid out transparently, we can see where you're making decisions about what counts. For example, is the cost of the time spent looking for a house included? Some people may do all the looking themselves; should they, in your view, pay a professional to source the house for them, and work the extra hours instead? Some people may accept a house in poor condition that they then renovate up to their required standard after purchase - the timing and method of which depends on their financial position at any particular time. How do you account for this in your time-cost modelling? Surely this is another form of 'sweat equity' - rather than spending the time living in sub-standard accommodation, they should just work harder to earn the money to pay for a house that's of the required standard first time, right? Or not? And there would be other examples. I think the article as it is lacks a clear, transparent tabulation of the kinds of assumptions about what constitutes the total costs of purchasing a 'house', leaving it open to comments about bias (which it has already attracted - too focussed on the way things work in the US). Eyedubya (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this article already address some of these issues? For example, doesn't it note that cheaper homes tend to be farther from jobs (so the cost of renting an apartment is not just what you pay the landlord, but also the time spent on the longer commute, plus the extra transportation costs)? Some of the other issues aren't properly addressed because they're not especially relevant: Some things cannot be outsourced. Even billionaires have to eat their own food. You can pay someone to grow the food, cook the food, and clean up the dishes, but if you hire someone to eat your food, you will starve. Similarly, someone else probably can't locate "the home I'll love for the rest of my life," no matter how much you pay.
I am not saying that any individual person should do this or that. I'm saying that the person who pays more cash and less time to get a house in a particular condition, and a person who pays less cash but more time to get an equivalent house, have paid approximately equivalent costs in the end. The "cash-poor but time-rich" person should not be fooled into thinking that the total cost is automatically lower just because the cash cost is lower.
I also think it's relevant to point out that this article focuses primarily on renters, not homeowners. People for whom affordable housing is most important tend not to be buying homes at all. While I am aware of some instances of renters (including my own family, when I was a child) arranging reduced rent in return for work on the property, it is definitely uncommon.
Finally, if you want to add an analysis of factors that affect the total cost of housing, then I'm not sure that this article is the right place. Perhaps real estate economics or something like that would be a better match. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the topic of affordability and real estate economics are related, just as the topics of affordable housing and public housing are also related, Eyedubya (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweat equity argument

I find it rather strange that sweat equity building does not reflect affordable housing. The article that I wrote about sweat equity was indeed about affordable housing. My sweat equity program as well as other programs makes it possible for homebuyers to purchase their home by providing labor to make it affordable. Sweat equity not only eliminates the downpayment that most homeowners simply cannot afford due to the rising costs of property, but also that homeowner can purchase the home for what it cost to actually construct the home with no other markups. Example, House "A" is on the market for $300,000.00. A downpayment on that home is 10%. The homeowner would have to have $30,000.00 plus closing cost ect. Now lets assume that that home of $300,000.00 is only actually worth $220,000.00, it does not change the fact that the homeowner with an income of $40,000.00 per year would have a hard time saving the $30,000.00 or maybe even if they are lucky they will strike a deal and have the downpayment reduced to 5%. 5% of $300,000.00 is still $15,000.00 and just out of reach of folks earning only $40,000.00 per year. Through sweat equity, house "A" actually costs approx $185,000.00 to build including the property. By eliminating the down payment and the homeowner purchasing the home for the actual cost now makes it affordable. By using sweat equity, the homeowner will have equity at the time of completion, but also the pride of ownership. I have used my program to help countless folks acheive homeownership who otherwise simply could not afford it. There are many programs out in the U.S providing affordable housing for low income families. The middle class family has no such help available and are left on their own. The average American should know about such programs as they would be enclined to own their own as well. If you would like the article rewritten to reflect the relevance of sweat equity and affordable housing I would love to be able to make the public aware of such programs. Thank you --Flash8515 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Let's try a more accessible example, and see if this helps: It's lunch time. There's a sandwich shop about two blocks from here. Here are my costs for getting a sandwich from them:

Total Costs of Having a Sandwich for Lunch
Method What I get Cost: Cash Cost: Time Cost: Other
Sandwich shop delivery One sandwich: calories (energy), protein, vitamins $11, including delivery charge Two minutes to find phone number and place order. Tiny share of cost of having a telephone, if you allocate costs based on use, but not if you calculate marginal costs (I'd have a phone anyway).

As it is, I haven't ever paid their delivery charge for a single sandwich. So my sandwich quest really looks like this:

Total Costs of Having a Sandwich for Lunch
Method What I get Cost: Cash Cost: Time Cost: Other
Sandwich shop pick-up One sandwich: calories (energy), protein, vitamins $6.43, including sales tax Four minutes each direction to walk to shop. Five minutes standing in line. Two minutes waiting for worker to make sandwich. Mental energy: Do not forget house keys.

The end result is the same. The cash cost of using the sandwich shop's services is lower this way, but my other costs are higher. My total costs, when you really look at picking up the sandwich instead of having it delivered, are about the same. I can earn $5 in about fifteen minutes ($20 an hour is the $40K per year you mention), or I can save $5 by using those fifteen minutes to avoid the delivery charge. This "sweat equity option" is a wash.

Now let us consider another option:

Total Costs of Having a Sandwich for Lunch
Method What I get Cost: Cash Cost: Time Cost: Other
Make at home One sandwich: calories (energy), protein, vitamins $1.50 About two extra minutes in the grocery store. Two minutes making sandwich. Two minutes cleaning up. Use of tools: Knife. Extra refrigeration costs (opening/closing door four times). Hot water for washing dishes. Mental energy: Advance planning (buy food at grocery store).

In this case, I can actually make an identical sandwich. What I'm getting is exactly the same. The cash costs are dramatically different. But is the total cost really that different? Basic economic theory is firm on this point: if it were obviously much cheaper to make a sandwich at home, then the sandwich shop would go out of business. Every rational person would fix a sandwich at home. Unless you're my cousin, who saw the costs this way some years back:

Total Costs of Having a Sandwich for Lunch
Method What he gets Cost: Cash Cost: Time Cost: Other
Make at home
for the first time 		One sandwich:
calories (energy),
protein, vitamins
  • $2.50 for sliced bread.
  • $3 for bottle of mayonnaise.
  • $1 for bottle of mustard.
  • $2 for head of lettuce.
  • $1 for tomato.
  • $3 for package of sliced cheese.
  • $2 for package of sliced meat.
  • $2 for paper plates
 Half hour for special trip to the
grocery store. Two minutes making
sandwich. Two minutes cleaning up. 		Extra refrigeration
costs (opening/closing
door four times).

The difference here is that he's looking at making one sandwich (today), and I'm looking at making eight (this week), plus I can allocate my grocery store time across 32 other (non-sandwich) meals.

I'm not saying that any individual is better off making this choice or that choice. I'm saying that overall, it's a wash. If you are cash-poor but time-rich, then it makes sense to use the resources that you have. If you have no cash, but you own a famous painting, you might be able to trade the painting for a house. In fact, I'm sure you could get a very nice house for the Mona Lisa. But the fact that you used a barter system to trade a painting instead of dollars doesn't make your home "cheaper" or "more affordable" in the end.

Importantly for this topic, the economists who deal with the affordability of housing see it in this economics-of-total-cost light, not in a cash-focused light. This fact is why "sweat equity," or reducing cash costs by providing your own labor, is not important to the actual affordability of housing: In economic terms, it does not change the total cost. It is a highly traditional way of coping with a cash-poor individual situation, but it does not change the actual value of the housing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Im not trying to invent the wheel here. I will just add my two cents just for the record. First, A sandwich shop? When it really comes down to affordable housing, I think you will find that most people, cash poor or not, think of affordable housing as affordable housing. They really are not interested in calculating the time spent building their home or how long it took them to go to Homedepot. Most folks are just looking to get a home they can be proud of and something to call their own and be able to obtain a decent mortgage. They don't really care about what economist's say about "economics-of-total-cost light" or a "cash-focused light", I don't even know what that is and I have been building houses for 15 years. All I know from experience is that the average Joe just wants a decent home for an affordable price. So that being said, how about maybe a link to the sweat equity page. Thanks again --Flash8515 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How's that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hows what?

Are we going around in circles? I am actually smiling about this because at least we are talking about it. All I wanted to do is let people know about sweat equity as a way to help them get into a home that otherwise they simply could not afford. If you feel strongly that sweat equity is not associated with affordable housing that is ok with me. Everyone has their own opinion on what is and is not important to them or relative to a certain topic. All I was asking is if not an article, then maybe a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity under the see also catagory. Thanks again --Flash8515 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a link under the ==See also== section earlier today. Is that a reasonable description? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I did not see that. Thank you for your help. It was a pleasure. Have a great day. --Flash8515 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cost of Time

It's a very nice-looking set of tables, but something doesn't feel quite right to me. For example, what about the costs of not taking a walk to get your sandwich? In the long run, the cumulative effect of a series of decisions like this is the obese, car-dependent, anti-social society that we're tending towards. Why bother walking anywhere when you can drive in slightly less time? Why bother going to work, the movies, the bookstore, the restaurant, the drugstore, when you can get it all done online. You end up fat and lonely, and that costs a lot in doctors fees, and other social costs. You may become unable to work. Then how much is your time worth? It'll be hard to do anything to help yourself, no matter what it costs. Its these costs, and the value of the benefits of walking, social interaction, etc etc, which are missing from this table. Affordability has to take in a much broader range of factors. Assessing the sheer numerical cost of single items misses out on the social embeddedness of those items within everyday life more broadly. Time as money isn't about affordability, it is, to quote Wilde, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Eyedubya (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bad example for this, because nearly all of my work happens between my ears, so I could do it even if I was paralyzed. But that's part of my point: you have to include more than the cash. If you decide to build your own home, you have to include all of the benefits (home, increased skills, greater confidence in your ability to perform repairs) and all of the costs (cash, time, injuries, stress). The economists have ways of doing this -- just like they have ways of determining exactly how much "cheaper" this year's $1,000 computer is compared to last year's $1,000 computer. The average individual doesn't seem to think about these things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

I realize that the mortgage mess is in the news a lot these days, and apparently homeownership is important to at least one of our editors. However, nearly all government programs that define affordable housing are looking at it from the perspective of renting, not buying. If you want to have a section specifically about homeownership in the United States, then please write it so that it's specific to homeownership and is not merely an unnecessarily restrictive label on a section that actually includes renters.

Furthermore, the "three main concepts" sounds an awful lot like one person's personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting original ideas. If you want to include it, then please provide a reliable, third-party source. (I don't actually expect you to be able to find a source that says that a short-term lease on an apartment can never be considered affordable because the apartment isn't available in perpetuity, but if you can do so, I'm perfectly willing to report that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are sources from Australia but they'd be as hard to find as the sources that weren't used for the previous, more limited definition of affrodable housing. They aren't my personal opinion, they are the 3 main criteria that are used by many campaigners for affordable housing in Australia. In the absence of any such criteria, affordability becomes a meaningless concept. Compare it to your sandwich example. The size of the sandwich is assumed to be adequate, the ingredients are assumed to be fresh, or at least, not stale. And you assume that when you've paid for it, you will be allowed to eat all of it, without having to pay any more. However, these assumptions aren't stated because its a trivial case. These things need stating when it comes to housing, because housing standards are an issue - you raise them yourself as a criticism of sweat equity. And tenure is an issue - if you have to move houe every 3 months, there are costs involved, and so the costs of the housing go up, and it becomes unaffordable - ask anyone who has been homeless. Eyedubya (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a UK definition that mentions only proportion of income; here's a long document for Ontario, Canada on affordable housing that directly ties rent subsidies to "“income-to-rent gap,” that is the amount by which the rent of each unit exceeds 35% of the income of the household" (page 11). By contrast, the City of Calgary in Alberta, Canada says 30% is the limit for housing costs (following the national standards), and specifically names "Emergency Shelters" and "Transitional Housing" as kinds of affordable housing, despite the fact that tenancy is strictly time-limited in those programs. Here's the major US federal agency saying that "The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing." That's four sources in three different countries that reject the idea that any individual's current situation must be permanent for it to be affordable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, l'm well aware of the politics of housing. Here's a definition from the South Australian government that says affordable housing must also be 'well built, located close to transport, shops, hospitals, and community services, as well as suited to its residents' - even more detailed criteria than the 3 fundamentals I have proposed. As you will see if you click on the link that answers the question 'what is affordable housing?' it covers a range of social housing programs that all depend on certain standards being met and security of tenure for their legitimacy. As for 'transiitonal housing', in Australia, this form of housing is governed by the residential tenancies act, and the intention of the programs under which its funded is to assist tenants to move from homelessness to long-term, secure housing that meets their needs at an affordable rent - via linkages between the housing itself and support workers who have regular contact with the tenants (factor that into your cost analysis). This can take some time, so for the duration of their tenancy, the housing has the characteristics of security of tenure. I think we can at least agree that 'affordable housing' is a contested concept and is not reducible only to the cost of purchasing or renting, but includes a whole range of other factors associated with it. The article therefore needs to be re-framed to allow these differences in the definition to be presented so that the types of housing arrangement deemed 'affordable' can be described in a less biased and inclusive manner. Eyedubya (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And here's a definition from the Queensland Government that list 6 criteria, only one of which (No. 6) is cost. Amd here's a provider of affordable housing in Melbourne. And if you're wondering what's so special or significant about what Aussie's might think constitutes 'affordable housing', that's because we're the world experts, we have some of the least affordable housing in the world. And that being the case, you'd think the reductive focus on cost alone would be driving the discourse, but its not. Its about quality and security as well. Eyedubya (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind presenting alternative concepts, but I'm not sure that your sources really support your view. This one says, for example, that "MAH seeks to provide appropriate, secure, well located and affordable housing" -- clearly suggesting that housing can be inappropriate, insecure, badly located, and still "affordable." The Brisbane TImes article considers only cost relative to income. Queensland clearly supports a total-cost-of-housing approach in practice (thus their interest in transportation costs, for example). In the US, publicly funded projects must meet more requirements than just cost, but we call a falling-down shack "indecent" or a "health hazard," not "unaffordable." If Australia uses "affordable housing" as a code word for what the rest of the world calls "decent and affordable housing," then I don't mind including that definition -- but your original proposal to replace everyone else's definition is not acceptable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the article currently has a 'bias' (POV) tag on it - and the map of the US at the top of the certainly helps maintain the impression that its a US issue. However, it seems that you actually agree with me, so I'm sure we can find some resolution to this soon. If its true that in the US you call " a falling-down shack "indecent" or a "health hazard," not "unaffordable." , then you are saying pretty much the same as I am - to count as 'affordable', housing must meet certain fundamental criteria. All I'm saying is that the intro section to the article needs to make these fundamentals clear - we can refine the wording if you don't like the form I've suggested. But the definition as it stands doesn't include anything about costs of living/accessing/maintaining housing, standards of accommodation, or issues of tenure, all of which are relevant costs associated with housing and must be taken into account to render the line 'affordable to those living in that housing' meaningful. For example, can housing that has no private cooking or washing facilities be considered affordable? Can housing which has 12 people living in a 3 bedroom space be considered affordable? Can housing which requires post-pubertal children of different genders to share bedrooms be considered affordable? Can housing which requires a car for every member of the household to go about their everyday lives be considered affordable? Can housing which requires the expense of moving and bond-paying every 3 months be considered affordable? The answer to all these kinds of questions is 'yes under some circumstances', but not under all circumstances. So, the definition section needs to explain exactly what definitions could be used, and what difference they make to the discussion. Its likely that Australians use English in a different way than people in the US (well, more than likely, its just a fact), so while you may interpret those sources I've provided as suggesting that affordability is a separate criterion from all the other characteristics of housing, that's not the way they'd be read by Australians - we'd say that those are all the characteristics housing must have to be affordable. Lets not get into splitting hairs about these cultural linguistic differences, since I think we basically agree. Eyedubya (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Leads are complicated and often benefit from an unhurried approach. Would you be willing to write Australia sections for Affordable housing#Affordability by country and Affordable housing#Housing subsidies by country? Perhaps when we several countries represented in the article, we could talk about how to summarize them in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll be happy to make a proper contribution to this article. In the meantime, here are some definitions Eyedubya (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Against

Does anybody else realise that if we are giving priority to cheap housing, we are lowering the overall quality of living? Surely it would be better to allow more land for housing, and to allow the market to dictate the price. If for example we only build luxury houses, wealthier people could by them and free up other houses. It takes longer for the chain to do it's job, but today's medium priced housing would end up as tomorrows affordable housing. The real issue, i believe, is that economies rely too heavily on inflation in the housing market to bolster the the economy. If you didn't have to pay so for your mortgage, would you bother working so hard? Also, the people who decide on these policies are very likely to own their own house. Rich looking after the poor by building cheap houses? No, rich looking after the rich by keeping the poor in poor housing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfoth (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Several studies performed between 1981 and 2005 have suggested that inclusionary zoning makes market-priced homes more expensive, restricts the supply of new homes, and produces few affordable units. According to the studies, developers in areas that incorporate inclusionary zoning compensate for the cost of the discounted homes by raising the price of market-rate housing. The increased home market price then causes a decrease in new home production which results in an overall shortage of housing (Bento 8-9).


Bento, Antonio. “Housing Market Effects of Inclusionary Zoning.” Cityscape, vol. 11, no. 2, Regulatory Innovation and Affordable Housing, 1 Jan. 2009, pp. 7–26. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20868701?ref=search-gateway:036eca2d253fdd4ea50c72f2b1f7c1ec Tcballesteros (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Bergmanucsd (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

Rebuttal/Edit/Addition: Often times the required percentage of newly developed land can be satisfied in a number of ways based on the city ordinance. Cities such as Napa, California have provided developers “alternative equivalent proposals “such as developing affordable housing on other sites (perhaps cheaper land), as well as allowing them to pay a fee or fine to bypass the inclusionary zoning law all together (Curtin 913-914).


Curtin, Daniel J. “Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Is Not Facially Invalid and Does Not Result in a Taking.” The Urban Lawyer, vol. 34, no. 4, 1 Oct. 2002, pp. 913–918. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27895405?ref=search-gateway:9de53c3b943a5a5bf9a5b2ab56a5a718.  Tcballesteros (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Bergmanucsd (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

Australia

Here's some links for Australia:

A place for social housing

Eyedubya, I see that you've re-inserted (and partly corrected) the restrictive sentence in the lead, to exclude information about social housing from this article.

The problem is that this is just plain wrong. Look at the UK section, that begins, "The United Kingdom has a long tradition of promoting affordable social rented housing." How do you reconcile this section with your assertion that this information is not in this article?

For that matter, why should we exclude this information? This article could reasonably include a bit of everything that relates to affordable housing: market-rate housing, non-market-rate housing, difficulties of definition, the sometimes critical difference between the "affordable" cash costs and the outrageous non-cash costs (transportation, or the fact that the "cheap" place is unsafe to live in), and so forth.

While you're thinking about it, let me give you a specific example. Here in California, many new housing developments include a number of "affordable" units. It works like this: the property is zoned for twenty-four townhomes. The developer is required to sell four of them as deed-restricted "affordable" units. The ones going up across the street from me are expected to sell for US $700K for the market-rate ones; the "affordable" ones will sell for about a third of that price to people who meet the income limitations (or less, if it's zone "low income" instead of "moderate income"). Moderate income is defined as the median income, ±20%, for a family of the same size in this area. Buyers must not have owned real estate for the past three years and must live in the home themselves. When they are buying (and when they someday sell the property), the purchase price is determined by a formula that primarily considers the area's median income and the current mortgage interest rates.

These are owner-occupied homes. So would you include this? I would, and indeed previous editors have left a fair bit of information about this kind of "affordable housing" program in this article. But it's exactly the kind of information that your "We're not talking about that" sentence indicates does not belong here -- and if you include this, it's kind of silly to not include other kinds of government controls on the cost of housing, from rent control to supply constriction.

I think you should re-think the limitations you've unilaterally imposed on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved questions from lead section

Questions moved from the lead section:

  • What should be included in 'housing' costs:taxes, insurance for owners, utility costs, rent, maintenance and/or furnishings?
  • What is meant by 'income': gross or net, one or all adults' income, children's income if any?
  • How do sharp temporary fluctuations in income and non-cash sources of goods and services get factored in?

--Bensin (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These had been added by user:Oceanflynn (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2011

Bias in section 'Affordable housing and public policy'

If we agree on the definition of 'purchasing power' provided by Wiki:

'Purchasing power is the number of goods/services that can be purchased with a unit of currency.'

Then this sentence from the article is grossly misleading:

'The purchasing power of individual households can be enhanced through tax and fiscal policies that result in reducing the cost of mortgages and the cost of borrowing.'

Lowering the cost of borrowing does not improve the purchasing power of households. It only increases their debt capacity, in other words people can take on more debt. This translates into a higher demand for housing. In turn, this translates into higher house prices. Therefore the suggestion that reducing the cost of borrowing is somehow helping people is really pernicious.

A higher cost of borrowing would in fact contribute to making housing more affordable since the lower demand would in turn translate into lower house prices. Lower house prices would in turn result in lower rental prices, which are crucial for people who cannot (or don't want to) get credit under any circumstances.

Remember that the crucial factor here is house prices, not the availability of credit. If governments actually cared and worked to help people, they would focus on house prices, not on credit. Instead, politicians focus on helping real-estate agents and construction companies, and on protecting the value of their own real-estate portfolios. I think that the 2008 real-estate bubble proved my point sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorld88 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and close paraphrasing issues

I have removed virtually all of the Canadian section. Large chunks are copied verbatim from previously published material at http://oceanflynn.wordpress.com/2011/05/, which in turn has copied material from other sources. I also strongly suspect that much of the other material in this section may be very closely paraphrased from the sources listed, particularly http://chra.olasoft.com/document/535/2007%20Lack%20of%20Affordable%20Housing1IFH-1282008-2232.pdf. The entire section needs to be re-written, closely checked against the sources cited for copying/close paraphrasing, and all verbatim quotes must be clearly marked as such and properly attributed. The quotes must be very brief and conform to the guidelines for the use of non-free material. The material I removed is available in this version Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue over the oceanflynn blog as the contributor on Wikipedia was user:Oceanflynn whose user page discloses that as her own blog (and it does not assert copyright). The section looked quite well-referenced to me, and I spent a few minutes without success looking for material lifted from the PDF linked above. Please would you be more specific over material that was copied or plagiarised from sources other than the editor's own blog? (I accept that it the re-use of material should be disclosed on this talk page, to save people the trouble of checking for WP:copyvio). – Fayenatic London 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid Wikipedia's copyright policy does not allow an editor to republish material from their own website (or print publications) unless they follow the procedures for WP:Donating copyright materials to the letter. The absence of a copyright notice on a website, does not mean its contents can be freely re-published on Wikipedia. The web page must explicitly display a compatible license. There's more detail on these issues at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and the pages linked from it.
However, this Duplication Detector report shows in bold type the material on the blog that was lifted verbatim from this paper by Nick Falvo delivered at the Canadian Economics Association in 2007. That material cannot be used here, regardless of what license the blog displays or whether the blog owner follows the procedure for donating their content. The owner can only release their own original work, not that of another author whom they've copied. The only source I checked against the blog was the Falvo paper, but it's quite possible that there's also material on it lifted from other sources.
In my opinion, it would be much better and simpler to re-write that section from scratch. If nothing else because it's overly detailed compared to the other sections, and in places had a somewhat polemic, unencylopedic style. It also had fairly lengthy quote, which was at least marked as such but requires an inline citation with full bibliographic details of its source. Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this. Having tried that tool, I agree that the content which you deleted has one unacceptable match of 30 words with the Falvo paper (Duplication Detector; the remaining matches are standard phrases or official names). I had noticed the unattributed quotation, and accept your point about that. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of affordable housing

I am a member of Picture the Homeless, and that organization takes issue with the definition of "affordable housing," finding the term frequently used to describe housing designed for people who make $60,000 or more. I don't know who these people are. I have a master's degree, and I've never made more than $18,000 a year. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What is affordable housing?

Affordable housing is housing that is appropriate for the needs of a range of very low to moderate income households and priced so that these households are also able to meet other basic living costs such as food, clothing, transport, medical care and education. As a rule of thumb, housing is usually considered affordable if it costs less than 30 percent of gross household income 1.

In this context, affordable housing refers to housing that has been developed with some assistance from the NSW and/or Commonwealth Governments, including through planning incentives. It may include a range of housing types and sizes, including single or multi-bedroom units or houses, as well as studio apartments. It is only available in some locations and eligibility criteria apply.

Although affordable housing is sometimes available for purchase, it is most commonly available for rent.

Affordable rental housing may be owned by private developers or investors, local governments, charitable organisations or community housing providers. It is usually managed by not for profit community housing providers, and sometimes by private organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonmartin01 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


Would you say that low-income housing falls under affordable housing? Or should it be a separate category? Selmaburke (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Broken link now a Link to home page of a commercial firm

External links lists "The Ethics of Housing and NIMBYism" by Debra Stein which should link to http://www.gcastrategies.com/booksandarticles/139/the-ethics-of-housing-and-nimbyism/ however that link went to the firm's main page. I don't see "The Ethics of Housing and NIMBYism" listed on the firm's website. It might be appropriate to instead link to http://gcastrategies.com/overcoming-nimby-opposition/ which appears to be a similar article. Or perhaps "The Ethics of Housing and NIMBYism" is in a legitimate journal. Tetsuo (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Affordable housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Affordable housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Affordable housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Affordable housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Affordable housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Low-Income Housing vs. Affordable Housing

Why is it that when one searches for low-income housing, they are redirected to affordable housing? In my view, affordable housing means that the housing is affordable, while low-income housing is housing that is usually provided for low-income families, usually through the government. Does anyone else think the two are interchangeable? Selmaburke (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want, you could start a discussion to change the redirect from this article to Subsidized housing. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affordable housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affordable_housing/Archive_1&oldid=1053066034"